"in" everywhere

[Simen kjaeraas]

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 13/10/2010 21:11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> <snip>
>> No, what is suggested is that we build the complexity guarantees into
>> the interface. For example, if you had a List interface, and it could
>> only guarantee O(n) performance for get, you'd call it e.g. slowGet(),
>> to signify it's a slow operation, and define get to signify a fast
>> operation. Similarly, 'in' is defined to be fast, so it has no business
>> being a function on an array.
> <snip>
>
> And make get assert(false) if a fast get isn't implementable?

No. That list would not be able to implement the List interface.


> I think this is bug-prone - somebody may use it forgetting that it won't  
> work on all List implementations, and then the algorithm will refuse at  
> runtime to work at all rather than degrading gracefully to something  
> that does.



-- 
Simen